Is it ? I thought both these seats were only a point or two difference in GOP performances (at least at the Presidential level). I don't have the '06 Almanac of American Politics to confirm that for '04, however, so I looked at the '00 statistics as applied to the '02 redistricted lines.
In any event, unless the seat had a more Dem lean to it, one might say that running a more liberal Republican would be prudent, but the district simply isn't. I tend to think pro-Republican districts that have RINOs such as Kolbe place us often at greater jeopardy for losing the seat, as many GOP Conservative base voters won't bother with them, and there's a lot more of those than RINO voters.
Bush carried Garret's district by 15%, and Kolbe's by 6%, in 2004.
I have trouble thinking of a RINO who lost in a discernably pro GOP open district in the general election, in the relatively recent past, but maybe there are some. Of course, this year might be different. But I don't think Kolbe's district is that conservative on social issues overall; in fact I tend to think it is fairly moderate.
President Bush got 53% and 57% in 2000 and 2004, respectively, in the NJ-05; he got 50% and 53% in 2000 and 2004, respectively, in the AZ-08. So the NJ-05 is at least 3%-4% more Republican than the AZ-08, and I would posit that President Bush's performance in Northern NJ and other parts of the Northeast understated the Republicanness of the district more than it did in Arizona (although Bush did underperform in AZ in 2000). I would call the AZ-08 a 53% GOP CD and the NJ-05 a 60% GOP CD.
But the fact that the Democrats didn't come close to defeating the very conservative Garrett means that the fact that supposedly many Republicans in those districts were liberal does not mean that they would be willing to vote for George W. Bush but not for a conservative House candidate. I would also note that Graf's most conservative position is on illegal immigration, and that's one issue on which Arizona voters are more conservative than the President.